News 2.3 Dev Update

Blimey, people harking on about immersion, or how 'if the devs implement xxx then immersion takes a hit'.

It's a video game, yeah?

I think everyone understands that Cmdr. Question is, what are the rules of the game? Am not against telepresence as an intermediary (development) step at all but the idea that instant body transfer 'improves the experience' of being an ED Cmdr is I think, wrong.

My hope is player-player avatar interaction becomes a thing, then some alien intervention kills telepresence uplinks. For those who want instant crew play, a second 'crew character' log in (like CQC is done) looks like a better approach I think. You could crew, even though you don't own your own ship at all, like ED Arena (is a separate product in the store, you might have multiple accounts).

Though obviously that goes beyond 2.3, I think what worries people is the longer term consequences of ED selling itself short by edging further into science-fantasy realms, the direction of travel indicated by insta-stuff, when the rest of the game (I think successfully) attempts to draw a science-fiction.

Telepresence is a clever meme for development but any tech that works perfectly, all the time, every time across all distances is a bit of a thin veneer, like, "magic man done it". And this must be a tech because we'll be sharing credits, rep changes and etc. on the main Cmdr account. I think a mistake though, to rely on people knowing lore to understand the context of reality in-game, without a visual clue to tell you, you're in a telepresent state.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. Also, when he says minority, perhaps he out to look at the previous fight over instant and who the minority actually are (aka the Insta-gratification minority).

It's not about ''instant gratification'', it's about accessibility for a new gameplay feature. Hell I voted delayed ship transfer, because that was a whole different beast. But what would be the point of adding unnecessary delays to this feature? To stop people from playing with each other? Seriously do tell why this is such a bad idea.
 
It's not about ''instant gratification'', it's about accessibility for a new gameplay feature. Hell I voted delayed ship transfer, because that was a whole different beast. But what would be the point of adding unnecessary delays to this feature? To stop people from playing with each other? Seriously do tell why this is such a bad idea.

Not a question of wanting to stop anything but what's reasonably allowable (without stretching and hence undermining ED's SF credibility). Telepresence is AOK but the screen would I hope be 'blued out' (like the SRV turret is) to tell you, you didn't just magically teleport across the galaxy, but it's a telepresence uplink you're in. Even a HUD banner 'telepresence live' gives you that clue, a hook to hang crediblity on.

The PROBLEM is, the SLF fighters already give you a clear view, with no 'telepresence active' signal, inconsistent with SRV version but importantly, Frontier could be selling crew accounts in the store, which would mean revenue towards development. This is annoying if you back/backed the game as opportunity might be missed unless telepresence lore is embraced. That would give room to maneuvre, without risking instant crewman feature being taken away later, to take up a possible revenue stream.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't sure if there would be a first person turret view option included, or is it just this third person view only?
 
I just hope FD is ignoring all the negativity here :) Bring on these cool features. IF someone really wants to buy the game 3 times and run it on 3 computers but play solo just to reduce the rebuy... well more money to FD...
 
A new slogan for Frontier, make it simple, make it lazy. Telepresence is a mistake, it's for vague people who do not want to make an effort to play. Next update Frontier will make a button that gives more credits for people vague and simply buy Ships. Thank you Frontier.
 
Folks, right now we still only have very limited information about the Multi-crew feature, but it seems everyone is now picturing this feature works as "I can instantly jump into another CMDR's ship right away from my own ship".

I would say this could be a kind of misunderstanding.
First things first, let's assume the Multi-crew would be added as a new game mode, just like Open, Private Group, Solo mode.

Then it would be simple to explain and compare it to: GTA V Online heists.
If you have never played heists in GTA V Online, heists are co-op missions for multiple (max. four) players to work together and make money.
  • There's always one heist host, then one ore three crew members depend on which heist job the host want to do.
  • The heist host provides the prepare room, has ability to change preference like job difficulty, the cut for each crew member etc.
  • The heist host can also set the heist as "free-join" by inviting every player in the same instance and every player is currently "looking for heists" activated server-wide. Private invitation is also an available option.

-

Pretty much comparable:

  • In GTA V Online heists, a player has to have a own apartment and reach a high-enough level to start a new heist job and invite other players to join.
  • In ED Multi-crew mode, a CMDR should firstly own a multi-crew capable ship, launch "Multi-crew mode", set the ship as "multi-crew accessible" or send private invitations after docking somewhere, and then just wait until other CMDRs join in. Once taking off, no more new crew members.

  • In GTA V Online heists, players who want to join a heist as a crew member can either accept the private invitation from the heist host, or active the "searching for heists" feature, saying "I'm ready to do heist anytime".
  • In ED Multi-crew mode, the invitation system should work just like that.

  • In GTA V Online heists, join a heist will let your in-game character disappear from the Los Santos City - auto out logging from your current instance and log into the instance of the heist host instantly.
  • In ED Multi-crew mode, click join another CMDR's ship would auto log you out from what you are doing - whatever you are in Open, PG or Solo mode - and switch you to the Multi-crew mode, instantly.

  • In GTA V Online heists, the heist host can see the crew members' profiles and has the right to kick someone out. The heist crew can also refuse to do the heist job if their cuts are too low.
  • In ED Multi-crew mode, the ship owner should have the right to choose the crew members by seeing their skill levels, and the crew members should also have the right to know what they are supposed to do and how would they get paid.

  • In GTA V Online heists, anyone of the heist crew, including the heist host leaves, will cause the whole heist job fails, nobody will get paid (or get very little paid when start the first retry).
  • In ED Multi-crew mode, crew members should better not leaving the ship until the session ends, force leave or accidentally disconnect of any crew including the ship owner would end the session immediately and no one gets paid. Everyone would then back to the main menu screen.

-

If creating a new "Multi-crew mode" is really the method that FDev would go for, these problems will also be no more / get explained:
  • Only the ship owner can be the helm.
  • Multi-crewed ships meets other non multi-crewed ships in combat.
  • Instant join of crew members during the combat.
  • Instant join of crew members during the exploration.
  • All crew members, including the ship owner won't get wanted since they won't get paid.
  • ...

-

Still, all you've read above is just my own guess.

FDev, we need more details!



CMDR Zhixian Wu
 
Last edited:
As long as their ship has enough seats (different ships have different multicrew capabilities) a Commander can directly invite players, or can set their vessel to allow multicrew access. Commanders looking to play as crew can either accept direct invites, or activate a new “looking for ship” feature, which will automatically place them as crew on a suitable vessel with multicrew access allowed, making the process quick and painless.

When joining a crew, a Commander will log out of their current vessel and transfer to the multi crew vessel, regardless of distance. They can also leave at any time (or be evicted by the ship’s owner) at which point they can return to where their ship was last, making the whole affair a very friendly, drop in – drop out procedure.

-------------------------------------------------------

Whilst I am ok with instant transfer, for game play reasons, I think this should not be allowed to happen at any time. Requiring both ships to be docked anywhere (station, surface base, outpost or capital ship ;) ) would not be much of a requirement (we need to do this to swap our ship or pick up NPC crews already).

I do not understand why we need a "telepresence" concept in the lore since the escape-pod technology allows us to insta-travel from ship to stations already, ship transfer of crews simply uses escape pods.

From my point of view the ideal implementation would require the wannabe crew to be docked and the host ships to either be dock or pick up an escape pod that pops up as a result of the transfer (which could be implemented at a later date). This would make in-combat transfer more difficult. Leaving can still happen at any time as one is essentially ejecting (or being ejected).

In flight ship to ship transfer should only be allowed if both are in close proximity (Visible range) leaving the door open to an awesome future where one could actually transfer using an SRV, fighter or space legs ...

Personally I'd like to see some distance limit (500ly? 1000ly ... don't know) but I can live without one.

The gunner role allows a crewmember to take control of all turreted weapons on the ship. They do not need to jump between turret views though. Using a third person interface, they control a reticule that all turrets within their arc will automatically follow; giving them improved spatial awareness and easy control of all turreted weapons. They also have access to two “quick slot” fire buttons, in addition to normal fire groups, that they can customize with modules, allowing them more options for activating weapons and scanners.

Furthermore, the gunner has access to advanced sensor systems, allowing them three hundred and sixty degree tracking arcs. This lets them activate advanced scanners (such as the kill warrant scanner) and missile launchers in any direction.
-------------------------------------------------------

Awesome!

The fighter con role lets a crewmember launch and control a fighter, even if the helm has already launched a fighter using NPC crew. This allows multicrew ships to have two fighters active at a time. In addition, if the ship has enough fighters, both crewmembers can take on the fighter con role, meaning three human controlled ships can be flying at the same time.
-------------------------------------------------------

I'd prefer the fighter con to be controlling NPC fighters, it makes him the wing leader!

However, as they share the benefits, so too do they share the punishments. Any crime that the ship suffers is applied to all crewmembers equally. But when a Commander leaves or ends a session, the crew will have the option of avoiding taking the crimes with them, but in doing so, will lose all credits earned. It will be their choice.

-------------------------------------------------------

I have some doubts about the whole punishment and rewards, being able to wave everything seems wrong. If one gets a bounty its a bounty, it is not such a big deal in the end. How about allowing just a grace period where if a crew pulls the trigger and the captain ejects him/her then the bounty is transformed into a fine (but stays a bounty for the person that pulled the trigger) and viceversa, if the captain pulls the trigger the crew can just eject to stay clean, but loosing any earning.

I think the crew should also get % of any trading profit (perhaps decided by the captain) like wings, even if nothing happens mid flight. This would always be payed unless the crew was being ejected for earning a bounty if the captain declared the ship to be a lawfull vessel. For pirates this would not apply and the crew would always get their cut. Arrgh!

To this end, to avoid exploits, like people being on board and earn money without doing much and maybe even be sleeping in RL, I think that turreted weapons and fighters should not be available to the Captain whilst the relevant station is in use by another CMDR (one more reason for fighter con crew to control all fighters) and perhaps even add some sort of dead-man switch feature like all crew to confirm ready before super cruise/hyperspace, or all bounty scans need to be performed by the gunner .
 
A new slogan for Frontier, make it simple, make it lazy. Telepresence is a mistake, it's for vague people who do not want to make an effort to play. Next update Frontier will make a button that gives more credits for people vague and simply buy Ships. Thank you Frontier.

Players wanting everything in this game (yeah it's a game believe it or not, you know the thing you are supposed to get entertainment from) to be full of unnecessary time sinks are a mistake.

They introduce a new feature and try to make it as accessible as possible so that as many people as possible will get to try it, but of course the forum wails about it. I'd hate to be in fdev's position with this part of the fanbase.
 
Whilst I am ok with instant transfer, for game play reasons, I think this should not be allowed to happen at any time. Requiring both ships to be docked anywhere (station, surface base, outpost or capital ship ;) ) would not be much of a requirement (we need to do this to swap our ship or pick up NPC crews already).

Small issue with that: It means you're locking out explorers who are far from the next station.
 
Small issue with that: It means you're locking out explorers who are far from the next station.

I agree, and in addition to that if I have to dock to take on a random player member, then that random starts mucking about (and possibly shooting me with my own SLF), I will then kick him and have to redock? No thanks... Quite happy for players to pop in and out of my ship without any convoluted "realism" function.

Though this raises a query:
@FDev: What happens if two players are in SLF and the host kicks one? Does the NPC crew member take over? What if the host kicks both - Does one SLF become unmanned or does it blow up?
 
Last edited:
It's not about ''instant gratification'', it's about accessibility for a new gameplay feature. Hell I voted delayed ship transfer, because that was a whole different beast. But what would be the point of adding unnecessary delays to this feature? To stop people from playing with each other? Seriously do tell why this is such a bad idea.

My main issue is with the many differences between what this will allow and the lack of availability of those features to NPCs. To be honest, until we can physically walk on ships, I'd say that we should do agent smithing. If you have an NPC pilot on board then you can invite a player to take over that body for purely gameplay reasons and the pay that would normally go to the NPC (and experience) would go to the player in control. I don't like that they are separate and the mass distance telepresence makes having any pilots in any ships obsolete. If it can work like this, then there's no reason any ship should be piloted in person by any pilot ever. At least with agent smithing you could have an understandable stopgap until players are actually allowed to walk around their ships and onto stations, bases etc. it would be very similar to what is being proposed, but the player slots available would be based on hired NPCs within the ships.
If it goes ahead as suggested, there will also be several imbalances. From the added prowess of the pips per player system to the ability to have two SLFs at once, anyone who does not embrace the feature will be at a major disadvantage. So much of this game was based on the neutrality between the game modes. This throws that out the window. Only those with the best connections will be able to take advantage of it and everyone else be damned. P2P barely works with wings. Imagine a wing of four with three players each. Now imagine them facing off against another such wing. Do you really think there's much chance in that working?
I might be wrong in this assumption, but I imagine if it were put to a vote, more people would want a full compliment of NPCs than this crammed in version of a multiplayer ship share that makes no sense by the science of the game. Fantasy is fine but when they start to break too many of their own rules, they lose the element of immersion that's nessessary to role playing and while that may not be an issue for some, I imagine it is an issue for many.
Essentially I see this as a very similar error to the proposition for instant ship transfer, for both gameplay and immersive reasons. At the very least, I'd say that without NPC to represent the crew, there should be a limit in the distance that this can be utilised. Iow, with NPC crew, fine unlimited distance as it's a player essentially taking control of the crew members already on board a ship, but for ships running empty, I'd say they have to at the very least begin in the same system, if not be docked at the same station.
 
Good news, looking forward.

But why nerf solo players??

NPC cost money, they get like 10 or even more from total earnings. That is bull high and they don't even spend it. Its not like, hey i like you commander lets get you the best Frame Shift drive or anything like that.......
NPC is useless, real player is not and is free. Fix the NPC please. No way i'm gonna take a NPC wich cost me millions.
 
Last edited:
Multi crew we wanted:
swfunand.jpg


"Multi" crew detailed here:
spaceships-millennium-falcon-x-wing-science-fiction-artwork-1328x856-wallpaper.jpg
 
Small issue with that: It means you're locking out explorers who are far from the next station.

In the next line I proposed as my fav option making being at a station a req for the wannabe crew only, so the limitation would be in one direction only. Currently without a station explorer cannot do a lot of things, from hiring NPC crews, to swap ships, mod ships, cash on data etc ....
 
Geez huge thread.

Not going to engage on what roles there are - once mechanic is in place it can be expanded (like new engineers/blueprints). I was in favor of ship transfer delays for gameplay reasons (queue all the 'you ruined my funz' whines). I am however in favor of crewing being instant since how else can you let it actually get used in a distributed game like this with no real 'hubs'. I like ship-owners only as helm, all instajoins are secondary. Probably some possible exploits to work out w.r.t. crewmembers trying to put a bounty on the helms head, or CG imbalancing but crew walk away with no bounty, whatever. Like that there's a possible 'matchmaking' idea out there to get strangers or less frequent players without "Elite Friends" to use....that might be able to filter (you set an open invite but block high bounties, or prefer fed ranks vs. imperial, whatever so you have a little control over what type of player you get matched with).

Instacrew is hard to justify from any sort of lore coherence standpoint, but is definitely the right way to go to get people to use it and start playing together, and it also incentivizes playing in open.

I worry most about what insta-crewing does to eventual spacelegs - at that point we lose instantaneousness or do you have to handwave 'teleporters' at stations, in which case ships make almost no sense inside the bubble anymore? You'll paint yourself into a corner Fdev. Also - you're going to a lot of effort for this character creator, but we can only use it once, or zero out our account and start over? (Presumably we'll be able to change outfits - new Frontier store skins incoming! - but not actual sex or main physical features or else avatars are just cartoons and we're all holograms.) To me same argument against having crew have to travel should be against a once-only character creation - you're not letting the players use the fruits of your effort.

So, a couple ideas to consider.

1. Player accounts have a helm and one to 3 'secondaries' (played crew). Only the helm has credits and can own a ship. The crew can only be used as crew, and they're what 'insta-travels'. Let's players use the character creation more than once. Lets Fdev ease any transition into removing instant travel when spacelegs come (the crew become fixed at their last known station/base stop and has to now hitch from there, perhap institute a ship-transfer-like 'taxi' mechanic from there...'helm' character is where his ship was last). Maybe you can kill off and cycle your secondaries a bit if you get bored and want a new appearance...since all credits and empire or fed rank pool to the 'commander' entity of the account, they're disposable. Fdev have right of control on names to prevent childishness like they can approve player account names now.

2. Along the lines of not making them purely disposable...how about they accrue one thing: time-based 'experience'....and can be therefore 'released from duty' back to stations at the pilot lounges for NPC-fighter-pilot purchasing by others, then you have an open slot you can refill. Again lets you use the character creator more often. If the training time is somewhat slow doesn't become some sort of magic revenue stream (might require a minimum 'contract' when you create them, like the PP week-long minimum, so someone doesn't just spam character creation with no thoughts and sell off total idiots for free creds, never leaving a station). Now players are crowdsourcing your NPC pilot creations. Perhaps incentivize keeping a crewmember longer for experience buildup by slightly scaling the pip-benefit they give whatever helm they're playing with, or otherwise buff them a bit.

That's my initial thoughts. Not just about the immediate mechanism but about planning for the future...and hopefully all good for the 'gameplay first' crowd as well.
 
Last edited:
It is. Just remind me, why do we have paying, time delayed ship transfers then?

So choices have consequences and player interactions can't pull magic head fakes. You can't dock after barely avoiding a gank in a cargo ship (or take a potshot at someone in a weak ship to get them to chase you) and emerge rampant in a battlewagon. (You can, if the shipyard and module stock supports, but it costs you time to fit it, and money.) You can't skimp on FSD and fuel to overpower a ship further, then insta-transfer it anywhere after fast taxi-ing. You can't PP just long enough to buy every size reward module like a Prismatic, then insta-free-transfer all modules and insta-jump ships of the right size to the engineer system to install and tune them all up after fast taxi-ing there once. (Yes, that's also why engy bases don't have shipyards, at least none I've noticed). Note you can still do all the engineering I mentioned - you'll just pay and have to wait a bit to do it. It's a credit drain for the excessively wealthy since the economy is rather poorly managed.

To me transfer delays were always ABOUT gameplay, not immersion. (I do think they've gone too far with the cost gradient, but the time gradient seems about right to me.)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom